0 



BO 



^''Annexation." - 



Deceptive and Misleading TactiCvS 



/Pledges violated and our \ 
\Beet Su<:ai' Industrv endantjered. ' 



-OF THE— 



Hawaiian "Sugar Trust." 



1 




"ANNE;XAXION. 



Tactics of the Hawaiian "Sugar Trust." 

The Hawaiian " Sugar Trust " and its employees have fallen 
down all along the line on their antiquated arguments ad- 
vanced to secure first " reciprocity " and then " annexation." 
They are attempting now to reform their shattered column 
principally on the basis of defense, delay, defamation and 
dust throwing. The idea that these denizens with a double 
allegiance, in many cases, should have the assurance to assail 
American citizens in their own capital who are engaged in 
the most natural work of upholding their home industry and 
resisting the attempt of the Hawaiian " Trust " to lobby the 
annexation scheme" through Congress is very refreshing. 
This foreign sugar trust " pretends not to see why our beet- 
sugar producers and our farmers throughout this country 
should oppose "annexation." 

The entire Hawaiian troupe of writers — including Blanche, 
Tray and Sweetheart, has been turned loose, apparently and 
its members are engaged in rather viciously snapping at the 
heels of those who have a great deal at stake and who know 
that this Hawaiian ''scheme" is even worse than the Ha- 
waiian "reciprocity" treaty which statesmen now in Con- 
gress denounced as a "job" ! These tactics smack of sore 
disappointment in some direction. The fact seems to be that 
M^r^(^/sentiment of the American people on this subject ic gath- 
ering volume and force, and especially in thirteen States west 
of the Missouri River and in the Middle West and Northwest, 
to resist the effect of which we have the Hawaiian "Trust" 
putting out false issues, irrelevant material and untruthful 
charges. We refer to two articles in the Washington Siar of 
the 15th inst., and to another in the same paper of later date^ 
all of which were suggested, if not indited, by the an- 
nexationists, although ostensibly reflecting the views of the 
paper itself, and therefore deceptive. 

By the way, the many articles in this Washington paper in 
favor of annexation have begun to attract more than ordinary 
attention ; not for the character of the material, but because 



2 



of the evident spirit that they convey. Is it true, as we are 
reliably informed and as is rumored, that a prominent person, 
having sole or considerable control of that paper, has ^300,000 
of Hawaiian plantation sugar stock which he hopes may go 
to par in case annexation is successful? 

No attempt has been made by any one — so far as we have 
seen, certainly not by the opponents of ''annexation," to 
locate General Schofield on the question of annexation. It 
has been assumed that both the Army and especially Naval 
circles looked upon ''annexation" favorably as opening the 
avenue to an increase of both, thereby accelerating promo- 
tions. So far as General Schofield is concerned we have sim- 
ply shown through liis report the value of Pearl River Harbor, 
and that as early as 1873 the United States could probably have 
gotten that harbor in Oahu in return for "reciprocity," and 
that it was not done until 1887 ; and secondly, we showed by 
his report and other evidence that "free sugar" lay at the 
basis of " reciprocity," as it forms the superstructure of "an- 
nexation." The allegation that there has been any attempt 
to falsify or deceive is the result of a reportorial nightmare 
or an easy faculty of a newspaper to mistake day for night, 
when that best serves the purpose of the Hawaiian "Sugar 
Trust." This much to show how hard the Hawaiian "Sugar 
Trust" and its agents are pressed. 

The beet-sugar producers have advanced very little argu- 
ment, in opposing " annexation," in behalf of their own 
industry, and they probably would have been content to have 
rested the case just where it is but for the tactics of their 
opponents. 

It should not be overlooked that the present is the third 
effort in this country to establish the beet-sugar industry and 
that it has already been attended with legislative hostility at 
the hands of Congress that came very near paralyzing it. 
From its effects the industry has but just emerged and there 
should be no recurrence of unfriendly legislative disposition 
upon either direct or upon indirect lines such as are found in 
"annexation." It deters capital from investment in an 
industry which Congress has twice pledged itself to advance, 
protect, and to maintain until there is adduced reasonable 
evidence showing the wisdom or unwisdom of its policy. 
Congress is not and cannot well be fully advised of the 
amount of expensive educational effort put forth since 1890 
by the producers of beet sugar and more recently by inde- 
pendent writers and agricultural journals over the whole 
country to advance this industry, nor of the deep interest 
that has come to be manifested in it by our farmers and by 



3 



labor and business men generally. Sugar factories are very 
expensive affairs and the production of sugar is a sensitive 
occupation which very slight legislation may overtake with 
disaster. While we may have at home very considerable 
capital willing to seek safe investment, we possess compara- 
tively few persons having a practical knowledge of beet-sugar 
production, and the fact that the agitation concerning the 
probable ^^<?r/ of Hawaiian ''annexation" has already caused 
capitalists to hesitate until the effect of this proposed legisla- 
tion on ''annexation " shall work out its pernicious results, 
alone and independently of the future, establishes the fact 
that great danger is apprehended and loss anticipated from 
" annexation." The power and influence of our domestic beet- 
sugar producers — in cash assets, may not be as great as that 
of the Hawaiian "Sugar Trust" but that the American peo- 
ple, especially in the 13 States west of the Missouri River 
are behind the home industry, admits of no question. Those 
people do not want " annexation "! If any doubt exists upon 
that head, it will turn into conviction a little later on. 

Congress — with President McKinley in 1890 leading, laid 
down, by bounty^ a distinctive protective policy for the beet- 
sugar industry, and it was re-enacted in duty form by the 
Dingley bill — in accordance presumably with the pledge of 
the Republican party at the St. Louis Convention. There is 
no escape from it. To bestow favor with one hand and para- 
lyze its benefits with the other — even by indirection, is not in 
the bond, and there would be nothing to leaven the responsi- 
bility for the vicious consequences that are almost sure to 
result from the consummation of this annexation "scheme." 

Our agriculturists who have awakened to a realization of 
what beet-sugar production really means, do not want Con- 
gress to unload the power nor the product of the Hawaiian 
" Sugar Trust " upon their new industry; thrust millions of 
foreign capital and a pestiferous crowd of foreign competitors 
between the beet sugar industry and its success, and then 
hear it said — " your industry is a failure !" 

Nor should those who have ventured the few millions 
already embarked in it, be asked to assume the risk even of 
losing it. They invested on the pledge of 1890, bore up under 
the destructive effects of the act of 1894, and have gone 
forward again under the pledge of 1897. It must not be 
assumed that the existing duty affords the encouragement for 
beet sugar that the bounty law did — there has been a great 
fall in sugar prices since 1890-1. This has been so great in 
consequence of surplus European crops, that our producers 
are almost at the mercy of the cheap sugar from Europe, 



' 4 



Hawaii, the East and West Indies. So that if the annexa- 
tion of Hawaii was conceded to be wise at any time, the 
present is ihe most critical that could possibly be selected. 
Foreign competition in the production of sugar is so severe 
that even the New York Sugar Trust is only able to make the 
price of its standard granulated product from to ^^^c. 
per pound above the price — duty paid, of Dutch granulated 
and fine German granulated; to wit, at 5.25 as as against 
5.15 and 5.03. In 1891-2-3, when the bounty was on domes- 
tic sugar, the average prices for standard granulated (whole- 
sale) were 4.6; 4.3 and 4.8, which, with bounty of 2 cents, 
made the price to our domestic beet-sugar producers 6.6; 6.3 
and 6.8 per pound, or an average of nearly cents more 
than now. 

This condition is a very important one when Congress comes 
to consider the effect of annexation " on the home sugar 
industry. 

The American Agriculturist, the leading journal among 
our farmers, says of the Hawaiian Sugar Trust^ — 

''The stake that the Sandwich Island sugar monopolies 
have in annexation is revealed by the annual report of the 
'Hutchinson Co.* On its Hawaiian plantations the entire 
cost of sugar production, including maintenance and depre- 
ciation, is placed at $30 per ton (less than i^^c. per pound), 
while the sugar sold at ^56 per ton, a net profit of $26 per 
ton, or over 86 per cent on cost. This 96-degree sugar is 
now quoted in New York around 3.7c. per lb., or ^75 per 
ton, which would add 73 per cent more to the above 
profit." 

On the other hand. Prof. Wiley, the chemist of our Depart- 
ment of Agriculture — who has given the matter of domestic 
sugar production special attention, stated in 1894, that — 

"The present actual cost of the production of beet, cane 
'* and sorghum sugar in the United States is about the same 
*' for each variety, and is perhaps a trifle over four cents per 
"pound, deducting the freight." 

These things indicate only one phase of the situation. 

On the Atlantic seaboard European cheap sugar depresses the 
price of sugar, minimizing the natural protective effect of our 
duty, the Sugar Trust fixing the price at or just above the com- 
petitive efforts of foreign trusts to force their sugar in,whilethat 
great section west of the Missouri River of thirteen States in 
which our principal beet-sugar factories are, as yet, located, 
furnishes the only market on which the beet sugar industry can 
rely, because the New York Sugar Trust comes up to and goes 
even beyond the Missouri River with its product at a price 



5 



only slightly above the price at which the Europeans can 
lay down their sugars. 

The Hawaiian product would operate in this way — 
Our total consumption of sugar in 1897 was 2,096,263 gross 
tons or 4,695,629,120 lbs. If our population was 72,000,000, 
the per capita consumption was about 65x0 pounds. The pop- 
ulation of the thirteen States beyond th^ Missouri River was 
as follows — 

Alaska 3ijOoo Nevada 60,000 

Arizona 77,000 New Mexico 185,000 

California 1,220,000 Oklahoma 275,000 

Colorado 450,000 Oregon 400,000 

Idaho 130,000 Texas 2,838,000 

Kansas 1,350,000 Utah 255,000 

Montana 185,000 Washington 415,000 

Nebraska 1,158,000 Wyoming 100,000 



Total 9, 129,000 

Per capita consumption 65^2_ 

Total consumption 595,200,800 lbs. 

At the very critical juncture in the progress of establishing the 
beet-sugar industry, it is proposed by " annexation " to pre- 
cipitate all or a major portion of the cheap sugar product of 
the Hawaiian Islands into San Francisco and upon the only 
markets on which domestic beet sugar can place any reliance. 
As the Omaha Bee says — 

At a moderate rate of freight Hawaiian sugar will easily 

reach our markets as far east as the Missouri River, cover- 

ing the very tract of territory in this country which is best 
''adapted for the production of beet sugar and thus taking 

away from that section the possibility of marketing its pro- 
*'duct. In view of this, few capitalists would risk their 

money in the domestic industry." 

A San Francisco dispatch, Nov. 11, says- — 

The contract of the Hawaiian planters with the Western 
Sugar Refinery will expire December 31, 1897. It will con- 
tinue that portion of the crop, say from 40,000 to 50,000 tons, 
which Claus Spreckels can control. Of the remainder of 
225,000 tons, 150,000 tons will be placed on the market by 
the California Beet Sugar and Refining Company. 

We have therefore a change of former conditions. We have at 
least 150,000 tons or 300,000,000 pounds of cheap or "contract" 
labor sugar coming in, to compete with our beet-sugar product. 
It is one-half or more of the total consumption of the thirteen 



6 



States west of the Missouri River ! It has no market at home 
and will not go to New York, as formerly under contract with the 
'^American Sugar Refining Co.," because transportation to San 
Francisco will be cheaper. It will be controlled by foreigners, 
English, German and denizen sugar planters and it will nat- 
urally force itselfrnXo and upon the markets relied upon now by 
the beet-sugar product. It will be surplus sugar and it must 
compete under these circumstances, very sharply. Because 
of favorable climate, fertility of soil and "contract" labor 
this Hawaiian sugar can be produced at a very low cost ; at 
about one-half what it presently costs to produce domestic 
sugar. The beet sugar industry cannot hope to stand up against 
these conditions. Former conditions have been overthrown 
by the Hawaiian "Sugar Trust," and in case of "annexa- 
tion" the situation would be tantamount to a declaration of 
war by Hawaiian sugar upon the domestic beet product, just 
as there is war between the New York trust and the European 
product on the Atlantic slope, the difference being that Ha- 
waiian sugar is laid down at nominal freight charges in the 
very midst of the markets relied on by beet sugar, while Eu- 
ropean sugar has higher ocean freight, commission charges 
plus whatever advantage the New York trust has in duty and 
countervailing duty. And Hawaiian sugar has an additional 
and very important advantage in this, that while loo pounds 
of Sandwich Island sugar will make 93 pounds of standard 
granulated, 100 pounds of beet sugar makes only 88 pounds 
of standard granulated — a difference of 5 pounds in favor of 
Hawaiian sugar. 

And then we have the Hawaiian " Sugar Trust" tendering 
false issues. It should be recalled that our beet-sugar pro- 
ducers are upon American soil and are not lobbying on foreign 
soil to break down a home industry nor are they surcharging 
the public press with anything not a matter of public record, 
nor have they ^64,000,000 of American gold in their pockets 
wrung from our taxpayers with which to harass an American 
Congress and manipulate a public press. 

Our beet-sugar producers have never — as pretended in a 
recent article in an organ of the Hawaiian " trust," 
grounded opposition to this annexation ''scheme" upon 
the theory that the Hawaiian product would leave no room 
for beet sugar to develop. That is a false issue, tendered 
to deceive and to draw attention away from the real point. 
The argument made by our beet sugar producers rests on no 
such silly and fragile a foundation because our large con- 
sumption and small production of sugar would quickly dis- 
pose of any such argument. The point — as has been out- 



7 



lined is, that the conditions are peculiar. The power of cheap 
production and to control the beet-sugar markets that would 
be possessed by Hawaiian sugar would be unequal and 
dangerous in favor of Hawaii ; and this embraces soil, yield 
per acre, cheap labor, cost of sugar and natural disposition 
to force into our beet-sugar markets — contracted by Atlantic 
slope sugar, the very large product of their surplus sugar. 
The cheaper made sugar, like the cheaper money, will seize 
and control the markets and the power will exist to do so, 
and the theory that the inclination will not, is too silly for 
serious attention. The Hawaiian product last year was at 
least 530,000,000 pounds, or sufficient to supply the 13 far 
Western States in which our beet-sugar factories and their 
markets are located. This must be placed against our beet- 
sugar product of 96,200,000 pounds. The advantage is 
apparent; it is the one which a foreign cheaper smt^^XvlS, article 
with superior volume always has over a weaker and more ex- 
pensive one. 

These are the conditions and considerations which have 
come to alarm our producers and our farmers throughout the 
whole country and they account for the almost solid sentiment 
of OMx agricultural ]o\xxT\2\^ against x\i\'s, annexation "scheme." 
Is the Secretary of Agriculture aware of this? And if so on 
what does he think it is based ? They feel and know that 
the interest of the Hawaiian ''sugar trust" will be to crush 
out the domestic beet-sugar industry ! In fact it could be 
safely relied upon to move upon that precise line ; its interest 
would be to absorb the local beet-sugar markets, whereupon 
it would have nothing but the N. Y. Sugar Trust with which 
to contend — and that three thousand miles away ! Thus would 
our beet"sugar industry be ground to powder between two 
Trusts ! 

An additional point recently advanced is, that the Hawaiian 
Islands have reached their limit of productive sugar capacity. 
The same argument, substantially, was used on each occasion 
when '^reciprocity" was discussed and especially in 1887. 
The statement, even with the support of the Secretary of 
Agriculture is not true, as the figures prove, beyond all con- 
tradiction. 

1894 — Hawaii exported to the United States of 
sugar, lbs..... 305,684,993 

1897 — 1° only eleven months she exported to 
us sugar, lbs — 496,780,682 

Here we find over 62 per c^Yil increase in three years, and 
only eleven months of the full year 1897 are accounted for. 



8 



What becomes of the fertilizer" argument of the Secretar)^' 
of Agriculture in the light of these figures? 

On this point Mr. Oxnard says — 

I see it stated that Hawaii has reached the limit of its; 

capacity, and cannot produce any more sugar than it is; 
''producing at the present time. This is absolutely false. 
" from the very best authority which I have been able to se- 
" cure, having sent out to the islands my expert, Dr. Fortius, 
" for the very purpose of finding out and reporting to me the 
"possibilities of the sugar industry in those islands." 

So that we do not overlook the resolution offered by Senator 
Lodge calling on the Secretary of Agriculture on the 14th 
inst., to report what effect, in his judgment^ the importation , 
of Hawaiian sugar has or could have upon beet-sugar produc- 
tion, nor do we ignore the Secretary's reply. Without 
wishing to cast any reflection upon the Secretary we think it 
safe to say, that as a Cabinet officer, he recognizes that this 
annexation "scheme" is an Administration measure, and for 
that reason he is hardly in fair position to be asked to give free 
opinion — even if we were to assume that it is his business to 
have the necessary information at hand on which to base a full 
and intelligent reply. 

Under such circumstances — and especially in view of the 
policy outlined in 1890, emphasized at St. Louis in 1896 and 
carried forward to the statute book by the Dingley bill, we 
apprehend that the personal opinion, even of a Cabinet offij- 
cial, involuntarily tendered, will hardly be accepted — either 
as conclusive against more practical judgment, or to shield 
Senators, Representatives, or an Administration against the 
probable consequences likely to result to the beet-sugar in- 
dustry of the United States from the policy of Hawaiian 
" annexation." The American people will not consider such 
a report as affording a refuge from criticism or condemnationi 
should disaster overtake this great agricultural industry. 

The domestic sugar producers of the United States; the farm- 
ing community being interested equally with them, wish here 
and now to most respectfully but firmly to warn the American 
Congress — which cannot in the very nature of things appre- 
ciate the situation, against the danger in this annexation 
"scheme." Its success will sound the doom of the beet-sugar 
industry, albeit existing factories might be able to survive for a 
short time. The success of the domestic sugar industry could 
be menaced only in equal degree by the " annexation " of Ger- 
many and her sugar ! If that has come to be the new policy 
of protective republicanism let it be openly proclaimed, nor 
let capital be rep^ate41y delu4ed with false professions. 



9 



The success in {nUmeasmt of our beet-sugar industry is promis- 
ing. That success would deprive Hawaiian sugar of its market 
in thirteen States 1 It ought not to require any great amount of 
intelligence to discover what the policy of the Hawaiian 
^'Sugar Trust " will be on the Pacific slope, when once annex- 
ation is an accomplished fact ! The beet-sugar industry has 
yet hardly a decent footing, and it could not survive the force 
of the conflict which the Hawaiian trust would precipitate, 
and there would be no remedy. Strike the domestic industry 
down now, and the boy of to-day will be aged indeed who 
would live to see its revival ! And who can now measure the 
/(CJj that would result from that? We venture little in pre- 
dicting that there would need to be a reckoning, because the 
American people, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, have set 
their minds upon producing their own sugar, and the man or 
the party that directly or indirectly defeats that purpose in- 
curs a great risk ; certainly grave responsibility. 

There is a point so clearly brought out in one of the two 
articles printed on the 15th inst. in the Washington organ of 
the Hawaiian denizens, that it deserves commendation for its 
frankness, as it evinces a sense of the value of truth not always 
apparent in brochures emanating from that source. It is stated 
that in case of ''annexation," Hawaii's treaty with Japan 
would lapse and that the treaty of the United States with 
Japan would take its place — under which Japanese cheap labor 
may come to this country, we being at liberty to limit, con- 
trol or prohibit it. Concede this, and does not the evidence 
taken in 1894 show that the Dole government hopes to pre- 
vent any change in our treaty with Japan? The fight 
that the Hawaiian ''Sugar Trust" would put up in Congress 
after annexation to continue Japanese checip labor in Hawaii, 
would discount present "annexation" efforts. It would 
thenht urged that Hawaiian sugar had become a domestic in- 
dustry and needed the protection which annexation now with 
Japanese cheap labor would morally promise ! 

On what basis does the Secretary of Agriculture conclude 
that in case of annexation contract or coolie labor in the 
Hawaiian Islands "will vanish" ! It is a mere conclusion, 
and the opposite of the natural one ! And what has the coffee 
theory to do with sugar ? In fact what information on the 
whole subject has the Secretary of Agriculture except what the 
Hawaiian Sugar Trust may have suggested or the Secretary 
himself read? A report to be of any value whatever should 
at least attempt to show the basis for its conclusions. 

And so, too, our large and increasing trade with Japan and 
her objections to any modifications of oar treaty with her, 



lO 

would be used as a very strong argument against the prohibi- 
tion of Japanese contract" labor. 

This is too apparent to require elucidation. The fact is, 
this " annexation " scheme — forced upon the country by the 
Hawaiian Sugar Trust, contains a violation of pledges and 
the seeds of serious trouble. The party in power does not 
appear to comprehend the scope of the proposition, but if it 
will not avert the danger, it must assuredly take all the con- 
sequences, and even a report from a Secretary of Agriculture 
will not prevent the American people from calling on it for 
an explanation. It is a party as well as an individual responsi- 
bility and each man must answer for himself and finally col- 
lectively to the country. 



One statement of the Hawaiian Sugar Trust " is no sooner 
effectually met and disposed of than another of its brood is 
turned loose upon the American people. All will remember 
that only a few weeks ago this " foreign trust" flooded the 
country with alarm concerning the alleged purpose of Japan 
to seize the Sandwich Islands ! It was a mere scare circulated 
to get up a warlike feeling in the United States in favor of 
annexation ! There was never a grain of either sense or truth 
in the idea. In fact, Mr. Dole in a recent interview in 
Chicago — published in the New York fournal of Jan. 24, said: 
There is absolutely no foundation for these stories of 
Hawaii being menaced by Japan. There is absolutely noth- 
ing in it. There is nothing in the relations between our 
country and Japan that hurried me to America." 

And yet for weeks and days the American people were hum- 
bugged with the statement that unless the United States an- 
nexed Hawaii, Japan or some other nation would. 

And Mr. Dole is reported to have also said, in answer to a 
question as to what would become of the present government 
should the United States refuse to annex the islands: 

Well, the republic is there. I don't know that anything 
would happen except that things will go on as usual. I don't 
see any immediate danger from possession by any other 
country." 

And so, too, the commercial " argument has ceased to be 
used. So that the reasons on which this annexation '^scheme" 
were originally based — to a very considerable extent, have 
dropped entirely out, and we have mere sentiment left. The 
latest scheme to secure free sugar for the Hawaiian Trust is to 
have Mr. Dole duplicate the visit of King Kalakaua here in 



i875> came to get free sugar through "reciprocity" 

as Mr. Dole comes to get free sugar through ''annexation." 
When and where is this farce to end ! We had Kalakaua met 
with pomp, parade and salvos as Mr. Dole is met from San 
Francisco to Washington, but it not only cost our taxpayers 
thousands for transportation and ''commissary" stores to 
entertain him, but eventually it has cost us $60,000,000 or 
more in duty remitted whicJi our taxpayers have had to ?nake up 
and which is now in the pockets of the big and smaller mem- 
bers of this foreign Hawaiian Sugar Trust ! 

So far as the statement is concerned that the " American 
Sugar Refining Company " is opposed to annexation, there 
is absolutely no evidence whatever to sustain it. The only 
wonder is that the foreign Hawaiian "Sugar Trust" mag- 
nates can find American citizens willing to listen to such 
unsupported statements. The New York Sugar Trust has the 
power to control the raw sugar needed in this country for 
home consumption ; say 75 per cent of our requirements. 
It certainly don i want to build up our domestic sugar industry, 
because that would put it out of its present profitable busi- 
ness, and how could it better aid Germany, Austria, Belgium, 
France and this other foreign (Hawaiian Trust) influence 
than by taking hold quietly and throttling our domestic 
producers in the infancy of their industry ' Great financial and 
other power, like that in England, moves on cold-blooded 
business lines and we submit that there is not only no proof 
whatever i\\di\. the "American Sugar Refining Company" is 
opposing " annexation," but we affirm that its natural action 
would be the reverse, provided it thought proper to interfere. 

When that great corporation deems proper, should " an- 
nexation " take place, to again control the Hawaiian product 
it will do so because it always wants as much raw sugar free 
of duty as it can command. \ 

The great fight is to " down " aiid destroy the domestic sugar* 
industry, and especially that of beet sugar, and all the sand- 
throwing will not strike that fact from the minds of the 
American people nor obliterate it from the observation of 
our farmers, laboring people and capitalists, who have 
already paid over ^60,000,000 of money — by the remission 
of duty on Hawaiian sugar, into the pool which the Ha- 
waiian " Sugar Trust " has at its command. The idea that 
American gold in the hands of foreigners should be turned 
against an infant domestic industry with the consent of the 
party that professedly stands for protection to American indus- 



12 



tries is one of those anomalies in statecraft of which our 
history, fortunately, presents no example. If this annexa- 
tion scheme " succeeds, we make the prediction that it will 
be a long time before another political organization will be 
able to go successfully to the American people on the issue 
of " protection to home industries " ! 



LIBRARY ^^OF^^||ON||g 

0 019 944 326 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 019 "944 326 4"^ 



HoUinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 eL19 944 326 4 



HoUinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



